God is evil if He has miracles and does not use them.

Thanks for replying Interesting. I respect your argument and, admittedly, agree to some extend. Save for two things:1) If we are positing the God of scripture (which I am assuming we are based on the trajectory of this thread and my argument at hand) God decides what is evil and what is not. Humanity, therefore, has no reference point from which to accuse God of abstract "evil" apart from himself and his own character. So to accuse God of evil in this rape scenario is a nonsense claim, since God cannot be evil. Therefore that cannot be the answer and a better solution must exist.Put another way, because his nature is to be inherantly and essentially good, God ≠ evil from the human perspective. Therefore another, more robust answer must exist.2) Free Choice becomes involved here. Now the Calvinist perspective would say "who are you human to question the acts and morality of God" but the Arminian perspective (which I must say, I am partial to ) would argue that since God gives humanity free choice, that is, humans are free beings and so their actions are not predetermined/planned/controlled by God, God must allow for the negative choices of humans to play out EVEN at the cost of damage to others. This is a complex train of thought and perhaps may get a bit off topic. Well now you are rejecting my biblical Ontology and so I really cannot say anything in rebuttal . But yes, assuming reality is as scripture says it is and events contained occurred the same way or similiar to how it portrays, your response simply reveals a slight "unknowledge" of the occurrences of scripture and the implications drawn from said occurrences.In other words, think bigger in the scope of the justification of God. Evil still persists, yes. But created beings murdered their Creator. This is something incomprehensible and the implications are borderline unknowable. For a sake of sanity though, we might say that this death was enough to satisfy justice, since God is the source/arbiter/very thing of justice and the means by which justice is even carried out. And my question is, "why would it?" when God by His very essence dictates what is evil? By accusing the ONE of evil, you need to use His standards of measuring evil. It seems like you are drawing a conclusion when you do not have enough information. Your issue is the current existence of evil, (understandably) but it is impossible to explain an answer to this when you reject a biblical Ontology. See the dilemma?That aside (since it is a little lame), the true answer comes out of studying the biblical concept of "Sin" and it's effect on the Universe. Which may become off topic Regards!- Raph

Just to be clear, as I've adjusted my statement a bit, this is where I'm coming from:

quote:

---

IF God exists.
IF God can easily prevent a rape.
IF there is no safety risk to God in preventing a rape.
IF God understands what rape is and that a particular innocent victim would not want to be raped.
IF "evil" includes not helping others when you're quite capable of helping them at no risk or loss of resources to yourself.
IF God does not prevent rapes given all the above,

​

THEN God is evil.

---

An excellent answer. And one that stands very strongly on it's own.Obviously, this says "no" to my definition for evil.
What you're saying here is that God defines evil, we are not privy to God's thoughts so it's quite possible that not helping others when it's easy for you to do so and there's no safety risk to yourself... isn't evil at all (when God is the one not helping, anyway).
If that's true, then I'd just have to say that God and I disagree on what's evil. Sure. I can understand this as a reason why God doesn't want to interfere.
It's just not a very good reason, to me. I find it unsatisfying.The rapist has free will.
The victim has free will.If the rapist is allowed to rape the victim, then the victim's free will is removed and the rapist keeps their free will.
If the rapist is prevented from committing the rape, then the rapist's free will is removed and the victim keeps their free will.To me, free will is preserved and removed regardless of which scenario is chosen (if the "choice" is available to someone).
Therefore, someone who is interested in preserving free will cannot make a decision in this matter unless they are prioritizing the free will of the rapist over the free will of the victim. Which, again, is evil.Unless, of course, going back to your first argument... if you're going to define evil as "whatever God decides evil to be"... then my statements are no longer valid. Yes, I understand this position.
I just think it's silly
I'm quite capable of understanding and identifying and defining "evil" without God. I would very much welcome His input, but as of yet He doesn't seem very responsive.To me, if I was standing on a curb and a rape occurred beside me, and I was capable of preventing it without any safety risk to myself and I did not prevent it... then I would judge myself to be evil.I'm just using the same standard for God.I understand that if someone uses a different standard, they will judge the event differently.
I understand that if someone uses a similar standard for humans, but a different standard if God is involved... then they will also judge it differently when God is involved.I just don't think morality should be so easily manipulated as to change stance when different individuals are involved, no matter who they are or how powerful they may be. But I have no recourse if someone else simply disagrees on such matters. I simply hope I never have to depend on their God if I am about to be raped.

I don't agree with the implied definition of God, as I have already said. You're defining Him as "quite capable of helping people at no risk or loss of resources to Himself." No. I'm disagreeing with the assumption that God could prevent rapes at no risk or loss of resources to Himself.

That's right. I don't think that's stretching the basic definition of a God.
Even an old-school Roman/Greek god would be quite capable of helping people at no risk or loss of resources to themselves. An acceptable rebuttal to my argument.Do you have an idea on what sort of restrictions would be on God such that He would have difficulty preventing a rape?The most-acceptable reason I can think of is "God knows stuff that we don't" or "God works in mysterious ways".
Not really all that acceptable to myself, but I'm sure many people find it satisfactory.
And, again, if God does exist it would be quite possible (even probable) that He would know things that we didn't understand.This doesn't make God good... it just delays the judgement of evil until we learn of God's reasoning. Maybe God's ways that we don't understand are still evil. Or, maybe not.Regardless, though, I would just hope that I don't have to rely on the God you believe in if I'm ever raped.

Fair. I think it would be more accurate to say that we actually are privy to at least some of the thoughts and perspectives of God, through the revelation that is scripture. So in this model, we might say that "not helping others when it's easy for you to do so and there's no safety risk to yourself is indeed evil. I think, rather, I would say that it's not as simplified as that statement.That makes sense. But again, if not for God you would have no reference point from which to accuse Him of abstract evil (assuming God is the ultimate good reality). Agreed. It becomes a sort of paradoxical or perhaps an inverted situation...haha. In an effort to preserve the free will of one the free will of another is violated and visa versa endlessly. Therefore, there must be another motive from the perspective of God which keeps Him from intervening in each moment like the one illustrated. Obviously the ways of God are unknowable to humans and so I cannot argue from a fully enlightened perspective, only from what scripture contains and the systematic theological conclusions drawn from that. The answer to this is quite complicated and is indeed off topic, but going there is required to answer this question.All that said, I would argue that God has a goal greater concerning humanity (even the Universe) than intervening in each and every negative scenario. I would argue this reason is to demonstrate the base and altogether evil nature of the cosmic "disease" called "Sin" in the Universe, in an effort to ultimately justify Himself in the face of accusations made against Him. I think your statements are valid. I mean, in theory, yes But to me that just seems pretty weak an argument because it just ends discussion with "I'm right, you're wrong!" And then we don't go anywhere And I would argue, where did you even get the idea that an abstract "evil" and "good" existed? And I am curious as to how you would define evil without an ultimate good as a reference point. To me, it's like saying one may define darkness without light when the very nature of darkness is the absence of light, or defining color blindness in a world without color. It's a nonsense claim. And I think you would be right to judge yourself thus. But to use the same standard to measure/judge God? The standard that is yourself? You're basically claiming to be the arbiter and ultimate judge of good and evil here, which I feel is a dangerous road. Could we extend this to other humans? Hitler? Ghandi? Stalin? Julius Caesar? Martin Luther King Jr? Malcolm X? Me? Do they also have this privilege? Who, then, gets to decide what is evil and what is good? Your evil might look vastly different from Malcolm X's "evil," and your "good" might look much different from Stalin's "good." Caesar's "good" may very well include doing absolutely nothing in the face of rape, if the person being taken advantage of was a barbarian or non-Roman slave. All this to say, morality does not change when different individuals are involved. Morality is always the same, because God is always the same. God is the ultimate reference point, and not just "another individual" who is more powerful than some.It is good when people can agree to disagree . I would argue, though, that to dismiss or hold disdain toward a God who does not help in every circumstance of evil would be to dismiss an inaccurate view of God, just a "scarecrow" and not the real God as he presents himself.God clearly does not intervene in every circumstance on earth. It's not his modus operandi. He is shown to be far more complex than that, and has goals beyond the temporary. He is also, however, at the same time deeply concerned with the present - even personally hurt by occurrences of injustice and pain - but seems mostly apt to use individuals for his purposes, imo, as this is shown throughout scripture and history.So, in conclusion, I would posit that if you were ever being raped, and I were there, regardless if there was a safety risk to myself, If I did not help you I would be evil. And if I did help, that would be the act of God in a person. Since God is ultimate good, anything done with goodwill, in a spirit of kindness, sacrifice, gentleness, compassion, mercy, love, etc, simply is the work of God.

Right. This is an answer that I cannot argue with. I certainly don't know everything, and a God (if He exists) quite possibly would. Or, at least, would know more than me.
It boils down to "Trust that God is good and has good intentions and we just don't know everything about the situation involved."Which just leaves the question unanswered. Maybe God has a good reason, maybe God has a bad reason. Who knows? True. I just don't see any reason to "assume God is the ultimate good reality." So this doesn't mean anything after that.
Mostly because I can think of a "more good" reality than this one. Therefore, either my imagination is a greater good-reality than God is capable of making... or God just isn't the ultimate good reality in the first place. Either way, though... my imagination is proof that this reality isn't "the most good."Of course, perhaps my imagination isn't possible.. for some reason that God knows and we don't. But that's just the thing... we don't know that. Therefore, it is irresponsible for us to "assume" that God is the ultimate good reality, precisely because we don't know. Quite possible again. Which, again, leaves us trusting in God.
Maybe God's greater goal is "worth it" to have so many innocent lives destroyed. Maybe it isn't. Who knows? I made it up from my imagination. You're free to prove me wrong. Evil -> Those actions that are defined as "bad" or "unwanted" by the person who is affected by the action.
Good -> Those actions that are defined as "good" or "desired" by the person who is affected by the action. I agree. Which is why my definitions of Good/Bad are derived from the person who the action is against... I actually have no say in the matter. Anyone being "the arbiter and ultimate judge" of good and evil is a dangerous road. To me, God is included in this as well. Might/creating/coming-first does not make right. Of course. We all have the privilege. Every intelligent being does.
People group up into societies and form a collectively-agreed-upon morality as well. That's how it works. The person who is affected by the action. Any other way leaves it open to being corrupted. Even if God does the deciding, it's still left open to being corrupted by God's followers. Yes. Of course, this is why morality is such a confusing subject... because there are no "always right" answers.
This is exactly why moral paradoxes exist. And it's exactly why moral arguments exist, because no two people judge everything to be exactly the same... because it's all subjective. I think you need to sort out your own thoughts first. Which is it?
Is God not judged by the same standards? Or is morality always the same no matter who's involved? I'm not dismissing Him. I'm just calling Him evil for not helping in situations where He could easily help out.
If those situations actually don't exist... then I won't call Him evil.
If they do exist, then He's evil....but it doesn't really change anything. I mean, I don't even believe He exists, so (to me) it doesn't really matter one way or the other. That's the thing, though. We don't know if God "is" ultimate good. You're just claiming it.I do agree, though... that IF God is ultimate good... then all your points follow. I just don't think that's how things work. I don't think there is a basis for ultimate good. I don't think it exists. From what we know of morals, they're all over the place. Some different from culture to culture, some similar, some can't find agreement within cultures. Sounds to me like they're all just made up and everyone's trying the best they can.

Reread your myths. The gods were constantly clashing over differing issues. They thought they had something to lose. As I've already said, God has to take the interests of the rapist into consideration too. That rapist might go on to find a cure for cancer. I don't think I've said that God is good, just that we can't say He's evil except in the most arbitrary subjective way. You really have lost the plot, haven't you? I don't believe in any God.

Well, since God has pretty clearly revealed himself, via scripture (although via other methods as well) we can accurately infer that he has good intentions from the evidence presented. We definitely cannot know everything involved in the situation, some things are simply unknowable (or at least with the information presently available). We've admitted that with science, and the same is true here.Again I think that's a little simplistic. But basically. Haha. We don't have all the answers. God has presented some of them via scripture, but we admittedly do have a fragmented perspective. It's not black and white. It's complicated - messy even, trying to make sense of reality and the issues being discussed here. As is, I would argue, any pursuit of understanding. That's ok.I totally agree that it ends with trust, though. At the end of the day I am only man and He is God. I'm glad he has to figure it out . Sounds similar to Anselm's Ontological Argument. I'm a little confused as to what you are meaning when you refer to "this (reality)?" The issue here at the core is we disagree about how reality is made up, yes? My ontology views what we see here, and observe, as an incomplete reality. It makes up a part, one might even say a "half," but not the entirety. Also, scripture teaches that the observable reality has been bent or "twisted" by Sin, so therefore is actually "not good" in it's current state.So I agree with you, I can also imagine a better reality than this one. But that reality isn't God. I mentioned God being the ultimate good reality because that is one of the things He claims to be. Albeit, not in explicit terms. Here's an example:

quote:

---

But the fruit of the Spirit is love, joy, peace, patience, kindness, goodness, faithfulness, 23 gentleness, self-control; against such things there is no law - Galatians 5:22-23

---

Here we see a statement about the nature of the Spirit (of God). God does not claim to ever be "the ultimate good" in scripture. That is more of a systematic theological conclusion. So I can admit that. But we might make the connection that:- if only one God exists
- & one of his attributes is goodness- THEN all other goodness is derived from His goodness, since goodness wouldn't exist in the created realm had the Creator not made it so.
- THEREFORE God himself is the ultimate reality of good(ness). I disagree. And I suppose we're getting to a more foundational level of our presuppositions here. I accept scripture as the major revelation from God in my ontology. Therefore I am not discussing merely the philosophical idea "god," one that may potentially be "good" but also may potentially be anything else. Rather I am denoting God (YHWH) as He presents himself in scripture. Therefore conclusions about Him can definitely be made from observing how he presents himself, and so that's what I'm doing when prescribing certain attributes to Him such as "goodness." I mean, at a certain point in any quest for meaning, understanding simply hits a brick wall and no more conclusions can be drawn. We only know so much. Scripture paints a picture of a God who is Creator, Lover, Life-Giver, and Saviour of all creation. Who better to leave the issue with? We do not have to "cross our fingers and hope for the best" because he has clearly expressed his interest - even love -for his creation. Therefore, I am comfortable trusting in God, yes . Interesting. These make sense to me, and do seem practical. In fact, I would go so far as to say this model lines up closely to the biblical one. It's reminiscent of the "Do unto others what you would have them do unto you" sentiment. It does seems highly subjective. The orientation of any action taken, then, lies in the perspective of the person being affected. No moral model is perfect, I recognize that, so cannot criticize this too much.The idea presented in scripture is of a universally constant God who operates via certain attributes/principles. Anything not of these attributes(principles) might be said to be "evil" or perhaps simply "not of God". This idea doesn't say any specific actions are "evil" or "wrong" but instead takes the positive argument, that God is these things (see list earlier) and anything outside of that is evil. Different perspectives are interesting .It also presents the idea that since God essentially is a certain set of attributes, he cannot be the opposites of those things. Therefore, any action taken by God must be in line with his attributes. These things (as presented in scripture) are not limited to the list presented earlier, and include such things as:- Holiness (independent righteousness or "right-ness" by which all actions taken by creations are judged/measured against)
- Justice (fair consequence in exchange for injustice)
- Love (personal sacrifice for the benefit of others) and
- Sovereignty (rulership unto which creation owes allegiance). Agreed. Except that phrase "does not make it right" is interesting to me. In your model, there is no absolute "right," therefore there might be a circumstance where (a God) creating/coming first does indeed make (an action) right . What would that scenario look like to you? #curiosity Interesting. So all this to say that there are no absolute "goods" and "evils." It makes sense.Scripture presents the idea that within God morality is derived. Not because God's morality "came first" but because within all morality is a shadow of the way God operates. In a sense, God is morality, but actually more than that, because God is love, which is a more demanding and robust ethic. I totally agree. Except that people do generally perceive certain actions to be morally right and wrong (forgive my lack of citing a peer reviewed study at this time). Genocide. Rape. Slavery. Racial Discrimination. Murder of children. These are actions which seem to be generally perceived by most as "undeniably wrong." It seems the morality of humanity is actually somewhat in harmony. Of course we see exceptions throughout history, but in general. Thoughts? God is judged by the same standards. But God is the standard. He essentially lives up to the standard because that is his very essence to do so.Put another way, "the standards" exists because they're statements about what God's nature is to be.What you're argument seems to be saying is: "fire must be judged by the same standards we use to judge weather fire is fire or not." It's essentially true, but unneeded. Fire simply is fire. We measure whether something is fire or not against real fire, against the real deal. We do not look at fire and question whether or not it's truly fire, even if it looks different or appears in a different color or state.God is similar. The difference is we are not privy to all the information about God, like we are with fire, so we cannot really make an accurate judgement about Him. Now we're right back where we started . I'm not saying it's simple or black and white. It's complicated, that's why the debate exists. Hence the question "why do bad things happen to good people?" in religious circles right? I'm only trying to point out that it's not quite as simple as your statement makes it out to be.At the end of the day, neither of us are going to magically change our positions based on a debate on EvCForum, we can recognize that much haha . It is true my argument seems to hinge on that assumption. But it seems to me that I have adequately defended that assumption here. (see argument few paragraphs above). "Good" only exists as we know it because there is a God who is by nature essentially good (all this information from scripture), among other things. That's not a statement about morals, or humanity, but about God. Stating that God is a certain way also doesn't automatically mean people, or even people claiming to follow Him are a certain way (good). It simply means that is how God presents Himself.We live in a broken world. A world and reality twisted by sin. Morals are all over the place because people are broken and no moral code is perfect because humans can never truly be "good" of themselves. There are no perfect answers because even if we had them we wouldn't be able to carry them out. But thanks be to God for providing a solution .Phew! Sorry for the long post. I recognize my long-windedness Regards!- RaphEdited by Raphael, : Fixed some errors and added clarity.

It is quite interesting to read the responses to this topic from many diverse individuals--all with differing and unique experiences with reality.For those of us who describe ourselves as believers--God is very real. We talk with Him, pray to Him, and hear from Him in many unique ways.What is interesting to me, however, is that God is also defined through non believers.The sub-title to Faith and Belief asks:

quote:

---

Is God an objective reality or a subjective concept?

---

In the phrase, I Love You *I* is the subject and *you* is the object.For believers, God is objective because they perceive Him personally and distinctly. I theorize that for non believers, God can never be objective and in fact is always subjective via description from believers...themselves subjective to the non believer. All of us--believer and non believer alike-- can only describe God subjectively through our own lens. Objectivism is very personal and cannot be adequately conveyed to others--nor perhaps should it. My jury is still out on this one.

quote:

---

Objectivism:
noun
1.
the tendency to lay stress on what is external to or independent of the mind.
2.
PHILOSOPHY
the belief that certain things, especially moral truths, exist independently of human knowledge or perception of them.

---

Food For Thought.

But He also says that He is jealous, and vengeful. And He's really into genocide.Those things aren't good.

I often hear this from believers and I always ask them what their particular experience has been. So far I've never had a coherent explanation of it. What's yours?

This makes sense friend! Very interesting insight here. In that case, it seems this is where the "butting heads" seems to come from within the debate. True. These things shouldn't be omitted. I was only referencing "goodness" as one of the many attributes of God. Jealousy, even vengeance (I prefer the term, "retribution" ) are also things God says about himself.The trouble comes when we see one attribute and peg that one attribute as "what God is" when it's just not as simple as that. God appears to be far more comprehensive and holistic than that.Regards!- Raph

So which side of the Problem of Evil are you on?Does got not have the power to stop it? Or does he not care enough to stop it?

I'm on side "C." Neither conclusion seems to be especially robust or thought out enough to me, therefore I choose a different conclusion.- God does have enough power to stop it
- & he does care enough that in an ideal situation he would supernaturally stop every case of rape.BUT- We don't live in an ideal situation (the existence of Sin)
- We don't have complete knowledge of God or can see from God's perspectiveTHEREFORE,- Though we have some information about the way God operates (via scripture mainly), God must have motives that are unknowable fully, and to come to a conclusion otherwise would simply be irresponsible since we have fragmented knowledge.Summarized: We simply do not have enough information about God to make a conclusion about whether he is "evil" or not.

An omnipotent god that cared enough to stop evil would change the situation.Not changing the situation would mean that he didn't care enough.Sure, maybe he cares a lot, but its not enough to stop it. Well that's just a cop-out The other option is that since he really is ALL-powerful, then he has the power to be omnipotent, and good, and also let evil exist, all simultaneously without contradiction, for some inexplicable reasons that we cannot understand.But that a pretty lame answer too. Well, its simple deductive logic. That's enough information to make a conclusion.You have to break the logic to get out of the conundrum - which is what I'm calling lame... or a cop-out.